FACULTY ORGANIZATION MINUTES
Time: 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m..
Location: Hawthorn 107
1. Call to Order
Meeting called to order at 12:00 p.m.
2. Approval of the Minutes of February 20, 2009
Meeting minutes of February 20, 2009 approved unanimously.
3. President’s Report
a. The following awards were announced:
Assistant Professor of Psychology Karl Nelson, Ph.D. and Associate Professor of Educational Leadership Vernon Smith, Ed.D., were the co-recipients of the IU Northwest Founders’ Day Faculty Outstanding Teaching Award
Adjunct Professor Kathleen Forgey, Ph.D., received the Associate Faculty Outstanding Teaching Award.
Assistant Professor of Political Science Marie Eisenstein, Ph.D., received the Outstanding Faculty Scholarship/Creativity Award
School of Nursing Lecturer Marci Mulcahey received the Outstanding Service Activity Award. Marie Eisenstein
The President wants to thank the members of the awards committees for their hard work, with specific thanks to Jon Becker.
b. Announcement by Prof. Schoon: Please go to see the set that has been created for the children’s play. The set is located in Savannah Hall. It is admirable effort to continue despite the absence of a theater. The next play will be in Raintree Hall.
c. Prof. Lindmark asks the President to elaborate on the merger issue. The President reports that Dr. Cast indicated that the Board of Trustees would support the concept, but that the initiative would have to originate with the faculty of IU and PU. He also notes that originally the discussion included PNC but that in a recent email from Dr. Cast only PUC and IUN were mentioned. Prof. Ige notes that we should consider the form of institution desired as the trustees will move on the issue but the initiative has to come from the institutions. It should also be noted that Dr. Cast did not strongly favor an independent university. The President asks if we should organize.
d. Chancellor Bergland is not able to attend due to a prior commitment.
e. V.C. Malik will not be in attendance. He is attending the HEC conference “Degrees of Success.” This conference fits nicely with our goals of retention and on-time graduation.
f. A budget proposal for Tamarack was prepared and presented and is currently under consideration in the House and Senate.
g. Prof. Goodwin asks what other steps are required. Dean Bankston notes that even if the funds are appropriated the Governor can still hold the money. He has done so in the past. Dean Rominger notes that the receipt of stimulus money may help.
4. Chancellor’s Report - none
5. Vice Chancellors’ Reports - none
6. UFC – Professor Don Coffin and Professor Chuck Gallmeier – P & T Document Revisited
a. The draft document from March 13, 2009 is presented and reviewed. The President notes that #1 and #2 are still problematic as is #4. Specifically, the Notification section (C) is of issue.
b. A discussion ensues. Prof. Coffin notes that as the document reads today the concept of Executive Review does not exist. Prof. Evans agrees. The President notes that IU South Bend passed a resolution which indicated the absence of support for the document. IU Southeast had acted earlier but was ignored.
c. The President notes that the new document is an excellent example of shared governance. It represents a compromise. The UFC will be given up to one year to identify the changes that will apply under the proposed principles.
a. Dean Rominger asks if the requirements for external reviewers will be clear if the principles don’t pass. Prof. Smith asks about service on department and campus P&T committees (this is not permitted). Prof. Delunas asks about campus differences and Pres. Gallmeier notes that the principles give all campuses an opportunity to tailor their requirements.
b. An extensive discussion on the issue of external reviewers occurs. Concerns centered on the narrowing definition of external reviewers, the number of external reviewers, the scope of review (entire dossier versus area of excellence), the need to reveal prior relationships with reviewers, and the informal requirements for the dossier which are not documented or codified. A concern arose regarding the requirements for senior lecturers. Prof. Coffin notes that the principles would not apply in the case of senior lecturers. Pres. Gallmeier notes that separate action is being taken on this issue on the IUN campus. V.P. O’Dell noted that the national model for review is not consistent with a review of the entire dossier.
c. Pres. Gallmeier asks if the faculty organization is prepared to vote. Prof. LaPointe moves to have faculty members email Prof. Coffin or Pres. Gallmeier with their concerns and to authorize both individuals to vote in good faith on behalf of the faculty. Prof. Tolhuizen seconds the motion. Pres. Gallmeier notes that concerns should be emailed to Prof. Coffin and himself given the limits on time. Vote is taken. Motion is approved unanimously. Prof. Coffin and Pres. Gallmeier will report on the number of emails received.
7. Elections Committee – Professor Jean Poulard
a. The results of the elections are as follows:
Vice-President: Zoran Kilbarda
Secretary: Judy Donovan
UFC: Ellen Szarleta
At-Large P&T: Doroty Ige and Cynthia O’Dell
Faculty Board of Review:
Alan Barr, Linda Delunas, Adrian Garcia, Ana Osan, Susan Zinner
At-Large Executive Committee: Linda Delunas
Pres. Gallmeier notes that there was competition in the elections and that this is positive.
1. Proposal to Alter Change of Grade Proposal – Academic Affairs Committee – Professor Karen Evans
a. Prof. Evans states that the current proposal was made to Academic Affairs. The process in place presently involves many steps and there are delays and problems that result. The goal of the current proposal is to streamline the process. The proposal has already been moved and seconded. A vote is held. The proposal is accepted unanimously.
b. Prof. Evans further notes that too many incompletes are being given and that more control over the terms of an incomplete should be taken by the faculty. The academic handbook has instructions for the administration of incompletes and faculty should review these instructions.
c. The website for the handbook is: www.indiana.edu/~upfoa/downloand/acad_handbk_we_08.pdf
If specific procedures are followed then there will be fewer problems.
d. Prof. Fisher asks if faculty/student written agreements are legally binding. Prof. Evans reports that should the student fail to complete the terms of the agreement the faculty member can assign the grade earned by the student. It is also noted that while one year is provided for completion students are not entitled to the full-year if another arrangement is made. Prof. Mucci asks if change of grade procedures apply to extensions of incompletes. V.C. O’Dell indicates that this is not the case. Prof. Lindmark asks if there is a time limit on the extensions. Prof. Evans notes that after one year the extension would seem to be pointless given the interruption in learning. Prof. Coffin notes there is no date final for extensions.
9. Calendar Committee – Professor Bob Mucci
a. Prof. Mucci notes that the calendar for 2010-11 requires a vote as does the tentative calendar for 2011-2012. There is little flexibility in the calendar because of summer sessions and the other timing considerations. Discussion ensues regarding the possibility of alternate summer sessions, including a session that would run in the middle of summer. Prof. Coffin notes there is no written policy regarding summer session scheduling so we have flexibility. Prof. Mucci notes that currently some classes do not run on the same schedule as the majority of summer classes. It is suggested that the idea of reorganizing summer sessions is worth exploring and that input should be obtained from the students. The faculty organization votes unanimously for the calendar.
10. Distance Education – Professor Bert Scott
a. Prof. Scott reports that the Dean’s Council discussed the Distance Education (DE) program and concluded that a cohesive program did not exist. A more comprehensive approach was suggested. It was noted that under VC Virginia Helms the Deans were commissioned to prepare a DE course every year, however this initiative stopped when she left the university. Our mission statement directs us to do two things: DE and off-campus education. It is important to our goal of increasing accessibility, and it is consistent with the goal of meeting the needs of the 7-county area. The cabinet asked Continuing studies to devise a plan and this plan was presented to VC Aggrey. The plan came before the IUN council in December and it was approved.
b. Prof. Scott will be putting together an advisory board to add consistency and to aid in coordination. He has approached the Computer Technology and Distance Education committees regarding their participation. More than half of their members have volunteered. If anyone else is interested in participating they should contact Prof. Scott.
c. The goal is to develop 30 general education classes, over which the advisory board would assume responsibility for ensuring quality and consistency. They have decided to start small and offer next some classes next spring. The classes will be conducted as a mixture of overload and inload. Continuing Studies would be involved the first 5 times the class is offered then control returns to the department.
d. It is hoped that sufficient funds will be generated to offer course development grants. The payments made to units will be consistent with the move to Responsibility Centered Management.
e. If members would like to see the prepared slide show it can be sent upon request.
f. Prof Coffin asks if there is money developing the first set of classes and Prof. Scott state the administration has indicated that the money is available. The advisory council and Continuing Studies will put together a timeline and application.
g. Prof. Caucci states that the literature suggests a larger time commitment is required for online classes. Prof. Scott agrees and states there is flexibility in designing the class. The design of the interaction is flexible. The board will be aiming to obtain compensation equivalent to a summer course. The departments may also receive a small stipend.
h. Prof. Smith notes the difference between on-line and distance education classes. Prof. Scott states that the focus is on online education but other avenues are being explored, e.g., a new facility in Portage.
i. Prof. Hug asks if video conferencing been considered. Prof. Scott indicates that is not currently part of the plan but as the campus expands its technology this is a possibility. The academic learning center does have this technology and Purdue has asked if we would like to use the equipment. Prof. Delunas notes that as the initiative evolves we should be aware that the HEC is starting to crack down on verifying work completed and the identity of the student, including discussions regarding cameras and biometrics. Prof. Ige states the importance of planning and coordination and the demands on faculty. Prof. Scott indicates that it is not his intent to recruit a faculty member without chair’s approval.
11. AQIP – Professor Linda Delunas and Professor Cynthia O’Dell
a. V.C. O’Dell notes that the campus was recommended for reaffirmation and that formal reaffirmation was to occur on April 6, 2009. The campus is waiting on notification. She thanks all who worked on this initiative.
b. The review panel provided feedback which can be viewed on the website. It was noted that the panel hoped that by the next systems appraisal IUN would have demonstrated continuous progress, including incorporating the AQIP process into the campus culture.
c. She notes that while we have made progress we must do more. We need to be clear on processes that we are using and we must document the processes.
d. A new portfolio is due in November and the campus is currently working on the document. Faculty should volunteer if they are interested.
e. One action project is RCM. Since we are considering using this method we need to fold it into AQIP.
f. A discussion ensues regarding the timing of the next full review, which will be 7 years from the last review, and the need to integrate AQIP into strategic planning. Prof. Hug notes this is a significant initiative and asks how the faculty organization might change in response. Prof. Coffin states that the structure and function of committees could be impacted. Prof. Delunas notes that process improvements will be the focus and that a good example of such a change is the Change of Grade Proposal presented by Prof. Evans. The need to document the process is stressed by V.C. O’Dell.
10. Supplemental Instruction – Cathy Hall
Cathy Hall, Director of Special Retention describes the supplemental instruction second time or more, they re-read the text, take notes and meet with students. The goal is to help students learn how to learn, foster community and increase retention. Classes with DFW rates of 25% or higher are targeted. Supplemental instructors are high achievers. They are paid $7.75/hour. Evaluation of the program supports the idea that students in classes with supplemental instructors do better, but there is an issue of self-selection. Supplemental instruction is not remedial, it is not tutoring, it is not a place to complain, it is not a place for lecture, nor is it a place to go to replace class material. It is fun for the supplemental instruction leaders and for students. Prof. Poulard comments that this is an excellent program.
13. Old Business - none
14. New Business - none
Prof. Poulard moves to adjourn. Prof. Tolhuizen seconds the motion. Pres. Gallmeier extends thanks to V.C Cynthia O’Dell for her service as Vice President, Ellen Szarleta for her service as Secretary, Don Coffin for his service as UFC representation, the Executive Committee members and to Ken Schoon and Jim Tolhuizen for their service as parliamentarians. Faculty votes unanimously to adjourn. Meeting concludes at 11:55 a.m.
This is the end of the faculty meetings for the year.
Meeting adjourned: 12:00 p.m.
Return to Faculty Org Main Page
3400 Broadway - Gary, Indiana 46408